122.

Sample Indictment -- Food Fraud Prosecution -- Miscellaneous Counts

The Grand Jury further charges:

COUNTS 2 - 13

Mail Fraud

1. Paragraphs 1 through 10 of Count 1 are adopted and incorporated
by
reference as though set forth fully herein.

2. From at least as early as January 1985 through December 1990, in
the
Western District of Kentucky, in Jefferson County, Kentucky, and
elsewhere, the defendants,

XXXX X. XXXX,

XXXX X. XXXX,

XXXXX X. XXXX,

XXXX XXXXXXX XXXX,

XXXXXX XXXXXX,

XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX, and

XXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX,

did knowingly and willfully devise and intend to devise a scheme
and
artifice to defraud, and obtain money and property from, buyers of
foods
represented to be unsweetened orange juice products, by means of
false
and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, knowing
that the
pretenses, representations, and promises were false when made.

3. It was part of said scheme and artifice that Moon Down sold to
customers products that were represented to be unsweetened orange
juice
products, when in fact, as a result of the acts of the defendants,
those
products contained substantial quantities of beet sugar, syrup
containing sugar, and also contained citric acid, which ingredients
were
not orange juice or orange juice concentrate.

4. It was further part of said scheme and artifice to defraud that
defendants XXXXX X. XXXX,XXXXX X. XXXX, XXXXXX X. XXXX, XXXXXXX
XXXXXX,
and XXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX would arrange for Moon Down and related
entities to acquire large amounts of beet sugar from various
sources.

5. It was further part of said scheme and artifice that defendants
XXXXXX X. XXXX and XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX would direct Moon Down
employees
to blend beet sugar into products that Moon Down would sell as
unsweetened orange juice products.

6. It was further part of said scheme and artifice that defendant
XXXXX
XXXXXXX XXXX would represent Moon Down's products as unsweetened
orange
juice products.

7. It was further part of said scheme and artifice that defendants
XXXXXXX XXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX would mail payment for
sugar
purchased on behalf of Moon Down and related entities.

8. It was further part of said scheme and artifice that defendant
XXXXX
X. XXXX would mail customers assurances and guarantees that Moon
Down
did not adulterate its products, and that Moon Down did business in
an
honest and forthright manner.

9. It was further part of said scheme and artifice that the
defendants
would receive in the mail invoices for sugar and syrup containing
sugar
that Moon Down purchased, and that those invoices would not
indicate
that the products contained sugar.

10. On or about the dates listed below, for the purpose of
executing and
attempting to execute said scheme and artifice to defraud, in the
Western District of Kentucky, the defendants, XXXXX X. XXXX, XXXXX
X.
XXXX, XXXXXX X. XXXX, XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX, XXXXXXX XXXXXX, XXXXXXXXX
XXXX
XXXXXX, and XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX, caused to be placed in authorized
depositories for mail matter, to be sent and delivered by the
United
States Postal Service, to the recipient listed below, and caused to
be
taken and received from the United States Postal Service, invoices,
invoice stubs, payments, letters, and guarantees, as indicated
below,
each such instance being a separate and additional Count of this
Indictment.

11 May 25, Letter and guarantee A firm in
1990 Yonkers, N.Y.

12 May 29, Letter and guarantee A firm in
1990 Whitehouse, N.J.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections
1341 and
2.

The Grand Jury further charges:

COUNTS 14 - 21

Interstate Shipment of Adulterated Food

11. Paragraphs 1 through 10 of Count 1 are adopted and incorporated
by
reference as though set forth fully herein.

12. On or about the dates listed below, in the Western District of
Kentucky, and elsewhere, the defendants,

XXXXX X. XXXX,

XXXXX X. XXXX,

XXXXXX X. XXXX,

XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX,

XXXXXXX XXXXXX,

XXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX, and

XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX,

with the intent to defraud and mislead, unlawfully introduced and
delivered for introduction, and caused to be introduced and
delivered
for introduction, into interstate commerce, for delivery to
customers of
Moon Down in the places listed below, adulterated foods, to wit:
foods
labeled as, and otherwise represented to be, orange concentrate and
unsweetened concentrated orange juice for manufacturing.

13. The foods were adulterated within the meaning of Title 21,
United
States Code, Section 342(b)(1), in that a valuable constituent,
namely,
orange juice concentrate, was in part omitted and abstracted
therefrom;
and Section 342(b)(2), in that beet sugar and syrup containing
sugar was
substituted in part for a valuable constituent, to wit: orange
juice
concentrate. Each instance listed below is a separate and
additional
Count of this Indictment.

COUNTCITY TO WHICH SHIPPEDDATE OF
SHIPMENTINVOICE NUMBER

14 Grandview, Washington January 10, 1990 Invoice
9691

15 Franklin, Massachusetts January 10, 1990 Invoice
9693

16 Franklin, Massachusetts January 30, 1990 Invoice
9877

17 Franklin, Massachusetts January 30, 1990 Invoice
9884

18 Grandview, Washington January 31, 1990 Invoice
9888

19 Sulphur Springs, Texas January 31, 1990 Invoice
9889

20 East Greenbush, New York March 8, 1990 Invoice
10269

21 Coventry, Connecticut April 6, 1990 Invoice
10586

All in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 331(a)
and
333(a)(2), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.

The Grand Jury further charges:

COUNTS 22 - 29

Interstate Shipment of Misbranded
Food

14. Paragraphs 1 through 10 of Count 1 are adopted and incorporated
by
reference as though set forth fully herein.

15. On or about the dates listed below, in the Western District of
Kentucky, and elsewhere, the defendants,

XXXXX X. XXXX,

XXXXX X. XXXX,

XXXXXX X. XXXX,

XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX,

XXXXXXX XXXXXX,

XXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX, and

XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX,

with the intent to defraud and mislead, unlawfully introduced and
delivered for introduction, and caused to be introduced and
delivered
for introduction, into interstate commerce, for delivery to
customers of
Moon Down in the places listed below, misbranded foods, to wit:
foods
labeled as, and otherwise represented to be, orange concentrate and
unsweetened concentrated orange juice for manufacturing.

16. The foods were misbranded within the meaning of Title 21,
United
States Code, Section 343(a)(1), in that the labeling of those foods
was
false and misleading because it represented and suggested that the
foods
consisted only of unsweetened orange juice concentrate, whereas
said
foods, in fact, contained beet sugar and syrup containing sugar;
and
Section 343(b), in that the food beet sugar was offered for sale
under
the name of another food, namely, unsweetened concentrated orange
juice
for manufacturing; and 343(g), in that foods represented to be
foods for
which a definition and standard of identity was prescribed by
regulation
(21 C.F.R. § 146.153) namely, concentrated orange juice for
manufacturing, failed to conform to that definition and standard of
identity, in that they were composed, in part, of ingredients not
permitted by the definition and standard of identity, including
beet
sugar (without a labeling statement). Each instance listed below is
a
separate and additional Count of this Indictment.

COUNTCITY TO WHICH SHIPPEDDATE OF
SHIPMENTINVOICE NUMBER

22 Grandview, Washington January 10, 1990 Invoice
9691

23 Franklin, Massachusetts January 10, 1990 Invoice
9693

24 Franklin, Massachusetts January 30, 1990 Invoice
9877

25 Franklin, Massachusetts January 30, 1990 Invoice
9884

26 Grandview, Washington January 31, 1990 Invoice
9888

27 Sulphur Springs, Texas January 31, 1990 Invoice
9889

28 East Greenbush, New York March 8, 1990 Invoice
10269

29 Coventry, Connecticut April 6, 1990 Invoice
10586

All in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections
331(a)
and 333(a)(2), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.

The Grand Jury further charges:

COUNT 30

Adulteration of a Food

17. Paragraphs 1 through 10 of Count 1 are adopted and incorporated
by
reference as though set forth fully herein.

18. On or about January 8, 1990, in the Western District of
Kentucky,
and elsewhere, the defendants,

XXXXX X. XXXX,

XXXXX X. XXXX,

XXXXXX X. XXXX,

XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX,

XXXXXXX XXXXXX,

XXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX, and

XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX,

with the intent to defraud and mislead, caused a food (production
document AAA02090), labeled as, and otherwise represented to be,
unsweetened concentrated orange juice for manufacturing, while held
for
sale after shipment of one of its components, namely, orange juice
concentrate, in interstate commerce to Benton, Kentucky, to be
adulterated within the meaning of Title 21, United States Code,
Section
342(b)(1), in that a valuable constituent, namely, orange juice
concentrate, was in part omitted and abstracted therefrom; and
Section
342(b)(2), in that beet sugar was substituted in part for a
valuable
constituent, to wit: orange juice concentrate.

All in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections
331(k)
and 333(a)(2), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.

The Grand Jury further charges:

COUNT 31

Misbranding of a Food

19. Paragraphs 1 through 10 of Count 1 are adopted and incorporated
by
reference as though set forth fully herein.

20. On or about January 8, 1990, in the Western District of
Kentucky,
and elsewhere, the defendants,

XXXXX X. XXXX,

XXXXX X. XXXX,

XXXXXX X. XXXX,

XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX,

XXXXXXX XXXXXX,

XXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX, and

XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX,

with the intent to defraud and mislead, caused a food (production
document AAA02090), labeled as, and otherwise represented to be,
unsweetened concentrated orange juice for manufacturing, while held
for
sale after shipment of one of its components, namely, orange juice
concentrate, in interstate commerce to Benton, Kentucky, to be
misbranded within the meaning of Title 21, United States Code,
Section
343(a)(1), in that the labeling of that food was false and
misleading
because it represented and suggested that the food consisted only
of
unsweetened concentrated orange juice for manufacturing, whereas
said
food, in fact, contained beet sugar; and Section 343(b), in that
the
food beet sugar was offered for sale under the name of another
food,
namely, unsweetened concentrated orange juice for manufacturing;
and
343(g), in that a food represented to be a food for which a
definition
and standard of identity was prescribed by regulation (21 C.F.R.
§
146.153) namely, concentrated orange juice for manufacturing,
failed to
conform to that definition and standard of identity, in that it was
composed, in part, of ingredients not permitted by the definition
and
standard of identity, including beet sugar (without a labeling
statement).

All in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections
331(k)
and 333(a)(2), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.

The Grand Jury further charges:

COUNT 32

Adulteration of a Food

21. Paragraphs 1 through 10 of Count 1 are adopted and incorporated
by
reference as though set forth fully herein.

22. On or about January 30, 1990, in the Western District of
Kentucky,
and elsewhere, the defendants,

XXXXX X. XXXX,

XXXXX X. XXXX,

XXXXXX X. XXXX,

XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX,

XXXXXXX XXXXXX,

XXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX, and

XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX,

with the intent to defraud and mislead, caused a food (No. 1012,
production document AAA00182), labeled as, and otherwise
represented to
be, unsweetened concentrated orange juice for manufacturing, while
held
for sale after shipment of one of its components, namely, orange
juice
concentrate, in interstate commerce to Benton, Kentucky, to be
adulterated within the meaning of Title 21, United States Code,
Section
342(b)(1), in that a valuable constituent, namely, orange juice
concentrate, was in part omitted and abstracted therefrom; and
Section
342(b)(2), in that beet sugar was substituted in part for a
valuable
constituent, to wit: orange juice concentrate.

All in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections
331(k)
and 333(a)(2), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.

The Grand Jury further charges:

COUNT 33

Misbranding of a Food

23. Paragraphs 1 through 10 of Count 1 are adopted and incorporated
by
reference as though set forth fully herein.

24. On or about January 30, 1990, in the Western District of
Kentucky,
and elsewhere, the defendants,

XXXXX X. XXXX,

XXXXX X. XXXX,

XXXXXX X. XXXX,

XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX,

XXXXXXX XXXXXX,

XXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX, and

XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXX,

with the intent to defraud and mislead, caused a food (No. 1012,
production document AAA00182), labeled as, and otherwise
represented to
be, unsweetened concentrated orange juice for manufacturing, while
held
for sale after shipment of one of its components, namely, orange
juice
concentrate, in interstate commerce to Benton, Kentucky, to be
misbranded within the meaning of Title 21, United States Code,
Section
343(a)(1), in that the labeling of that food was false and
misleading
because it represented and suggested that the food consisted only
of
unsweetened concentrated orange juice for manufacturing, whereas
said
food, in fact, contained beet sugar; and Section 343(b), in that
the
food beet sugar was offered for sale under the name of another
food,
namely, unsweetened concentrated orange juice for manufacturing;
and
343(g), in that a food represented to be a food for which a
definition
and standard of identity was prescribed by regulation (21 C.F.R.
§
146.153) namely, concentrated orange juice for manufacturing,
failed to
conform to that definition and standard of identity, in that it was
composed, in part, of ingredients not permitted by the definition
and
standard of identity, including beet sugar (without a labeling
statement).

All in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections
331(k)
and 333(a)(2), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.